PLRC Blog

This blog supplements Chapter 7 of America in Peril

31 May 2008

We have become dependent on the media for information on what takes place in the world. The morning paper and the “10 o’clock news” provide daily updates on domestic and foreign affairs. But when news reporting becomes skewed, or biased, or outright misrepresented it becomes a serious detriment to informed democratic processes. When that detriment is promoted by our own government it is not only criminal, but treasonous. That is why Congress since 1951 has attached to every appropriations bill a statement saying, “No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress.” That statement forbids misrepresenting news as independently obtained when it is secretly prepared or financed by a government agency. In Chapter 7 of America in Peril I discussed pre-packaged news stories and embedded media pundits as criminal violations of that statute. On 20 April 2008 The New York Times revealed more — how the Pentagon provides military news analysts to deceive the people. As the faces and names of these analysts become familiar, they are accepted by viewers as providing professionally researched opinions. In reality they are part of “an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.” (Barstow)

PR experts noted in 2002 that news analysts receive more air time than regular media reporters. Culturing retired military officers to analyze the news was devised by The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq to prepare the public for regime change in Baghdad. Established with White House blessings in 2002, this Committee deplored public perception of the Vietnam war being a military defeat. The war was lost, it declared, “not because we were outfought, but because we were out Psyoped.” The Committee outlined a new approach to psychological operations that makes extensive use of the media to “strengthen our national will to victory” in Iraq. (Barstow)

Viewers get used to these former military officers and feel comfortable with their interpretations of events. They accept those interpretations as their own. In the months before invading Iraq the administration was propagating the notion that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and had connections with Al Qaida. The Pentagon focused its PR efforts on military analysts who would bolster the administration’s story. White House officials liked the idea and oversaw the selection of candidates. Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary at the time, had the final sign-off on these “reliable friends who could be counted on ‘to carry our water’ on the television and cable networks.” (Galloway)

These selected analysts – “surrogates,” as they are called — receive special information separate from the regular press offices. They are briefed by elite teams from the White House, the State and Justice Departments, and the Pentagon. Some are given access to secret intelligence. These briefings provided “talking points” which are taken to the airways as “message force multipliers” of the administration’s position. The analysts who attend these briefings cannot quote briefing specialists or even identify the briefings. They must transform all material into their own words so it sounds like an independent judgment.

In his new memoir, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan confirmed the mass deception leading to the Iraq war. He said “some of the administration’s most senior officials regularly lied to the public” and “managed the debate leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq in a way that ‘almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option.’” (Gerstenzang and Schmitt) McClellan pointed out that “the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated ‘public propaganda campaign’ led by President Bush and aimed at ‘manipulating sources of public opinion.’” (Shear) Although the White House commiserated over how Scott had been so loyal and this was so shocking, it made no official comment on the accusations themselves.

During the summer of 2003 the Iraqi insurgency gained momentum. News stories coming from Baghdad told of widespread mayhem. This was not what the Bush administration wanted the public to hear. The Pentagon sent out an order to “re-energize surrogates and message force multipliers.” In September 2003 four embedded Pentagon analysts were given a government-sponsored tour of Iraq which was hyped as observing “the real situation on the ground in Iraq” — a situation described years later by more objective observers as deteriorating. The analysts were shown carefully selected locations and were briefed on how the insurgents themselves were “degraded, isolated, and on the run,” and “would be ‘down to a few numbers’ within months.” (Barstow) This excursion proved so successful for the administration that more trips followed to Baghdad, Afghanistan, and the US Central Command headquarters at Tampa, Florida. Embedded military analysts have been used to mollify any bad news, from military deaths in Iraq to the April 2006 “Generals Revolt” against Rumsfeld. Now, most certainly, they are prepped to mitigate Scott McClellan’s memoir and interviews.

Military analysts were also mobilized when Amnesty International depicted Guantanamo as “the gulag of modern times.” (Barstow) Evidence of abuse and torture made public during the summer of 2005 snapped the administration’s “perception management” teams to action. They flew a group of retired officers to Cuba where they received a meticulously orchestrated tour of the prison. That June 24^th junket was the first of six to America’s offshore “gulag” to counter domestic and international perception of Guantanamo as the epitome of White House obsessions with torture.

Over the years, there have been some 75 military officers selected as expert news analysts. Most were/are affiliated with some 150 major and smaller military contractors as lobbyists or consultants, executives or board members. Of course these contractors have a vested interest in the war. Clandestine briefings, access to privileged material, and Middle East junkets all provide information and opportunities that enhance the analysts’ work for big business. Many of these “surrogates” are even seeking Pentagon contracts. Some say they do notify the network and recluse themselves when conflicts of interests crop up, but of course the public understands none of these machinations between government and industry and public communication. Analysts won’t express doubts or criticize the war, and they won’t reveal the workings of this conspiracy. Doing so would immediately lead to exclusion from valuable information. It could also lead to cancellation of contracts they have already negotiated. Rumsfeld said in a 2005 memo: “This trusted core group will be more than willing to work closely with us because we are their bread and butter.” (Galloway)

Pentagon-cultured military analysts appear on all the major broadcast and cable networks. Some appear on radio talk shows or have articles published in newspapers, magazines, and websites. Receiving compensation from media networks while at the same time being indoctrinated by the administration and accepting taxpayer-paid trips raises questions regarding ethics and the authenticity of their analyses. Even more serious, the secret nature of this program smacks of covert propaganda against the American public by its own government, an activity that is criminalized by US statutes.

According to Stars & Stripes, “The Defense Department has temporarily stopped feeding information to retired military officers pending review of the issue, said Robert Hastings, principle deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.” (Schogol, emphasis added)

Bob Aldridge

References.

Barstow, David; “Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” The New York Times, 20 April 2008.

Galloway, Joseph L.; “Famed War Reporter Calls Pentagon/Media ‘Propaganda’ Program Illegal,” Editor & Publisher, 15 May 2008.

Gerstenzang, James and Richard B. Schmitt; “Political World Abuz over Scott McClellan’s Tell-All Book,” Los Angeles Times, 29 May 2008.

Schogol, Jeff; “Pentagon Halts Feeding of Information to Retired Officers While Issue is Reviewed,” Stars &Stripes, 27 April 2008.

Shear, Michael D.; “Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled US on Iraq,” Washington Post, 28 May 2008.

This blog supplements Chapters 2 and 3 of America in Peril

18 May 2008

The Bush administration’s enchantment with people-tracking data bases continues unabated while citizen opposition lolls in passivity. The Joint Regional Information Exchange System (JRIES) has information spread across 50 states, the District of Columbia, 5 US territories, and 50 major cities but is so digitally interconnected that it can be accessed in its entirety with a single query. Federal and state agencies feed into JRIES as do commercial entities such as Entersect (claiming 12 billion records on 98% of Americans); Accurint, ChoicePoint, and LexisNexis (with billions of records on homes, cars, phone numbers, and more); LocatePlus (cell phone and unlisted phone numbers); and ClaimSearch (insurance, casualty, and property claims). Certain authorized JRIES users can interact with Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, an FBI secret level repository, and through the FBI to top secret CIA data banks. There are also links to the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon’s Northern Command.

The FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) already has digital fingerprints and criminal records on 55 million people convicted of everything from a misdemeanor to a capital crime. Fingerprint comparison requests from 900,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers in the US and Canada reach 100,000 a day. The CJIS interacts with the Terrorist Screening Center’s database and the FBI’s National Crime Information Center master database on criminals, fugitives, and terrorists.

In addition the Pentagon has collected fingerprints, iris scans, and facial photographs of 1.5 million Iraqis and Afghans, as well as DNA from detainees. The Department of Homeland Security uses iris scans at some airports and has millions of fingerprint sets collected from US and foreign travelers, overseas baby adoptions, and visa/passport applications.

The administration wants more. The FBI has a $1-billion program called “Next Generation Identification” to compile a spectrum of biometric data – fingerprints, palm patterns, iris images, and facial patterns. The goal is to “fuse” all these biometric identifiers by 2013. Other projects feed into this program. Here are some highlights.

Fingerprints and Palm Patterns. The original plan for a program called US-VISIT was to collect fingerprint and facial identification on all travelers entering and exiting the US. The exit part was dropped in 2006 for lack of funds. Then in April 2008 the Department of Homeland Security asked airlines to collect fingerprints of all foreigners leaving the country by air. The airlines, of course, balked because, they say, fingerprinting 33 million people anually will cost $230-million while resulting in delayed departures and missed connections globally. DHS secretary Michael Chertoff said, “We have to decide who is going to win this fight. Is it going to be the airline industry, or is it going to be the people who believe we should know who leaves the country by air?” (Spencer S. Hsu and Del Quentin Wilber, Washington Post, 22 April 2008) Has anyone seen the poll that shows that’s what people believe?

DHS has another plan in the works. A program called “Server in the Sky” will allow sharing fingerprint databases among Canada, Australia, the UK, and the US. Chertoff was asked by the Canadian media if sharing such personal data among four countries wasn’t a scary thing. He replied that “a fingerprint was hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world …” Jennifer Stoddart, responsible for Canada’s privacy issues, retorted, “Fingerprints constitute extremely personal information for which there is clearly a high expectation of privacy.” DHS’s own Privacy Impact Statement classifies “biometric identifiers (e.g. fingerprints)” as “personally identifiable information.” (Peter Swire, PrisonPlanet.com, 17 April 2008)

A fingerprint database shared throughout the world will soon become the biggest identity theft of all. Yet the secretary of homeland security doesn’t believe fingerprints should be guarded because, as he told the Canadian media, it is difficult to fake a fingerprint. Not so says Security expert Bruce Schneier, who purchased a technique on the internet for $10 that fooled eleven commercially-available fingerprint identification systems. Yes, there is definitely reason to worry.

Palm print recognition uses many of the same techniques as with fingerprints. The ridges and valleys of the skin form distinctive patterns. More than 30% of the prints lifted at crime scenes are of palms, not fingers. For that reason the FBI’s “Next Generation Identification” initiative has the objective of setting up an integrated National Palm Print Service.

Iris Scans and Facial Patterns. A patent on iris scan technology expired in 2006 and corporations jumped on board to reap the benefits. Ostensibly to identify sex offenders, runaways, kidnapped children, and lost Alzheimer’s patients; over 2,100 sheriffs departments in 27 states are storing infrared digital photographs of people’s eyes. In addition, at least 10 metropolitan police agencies are scanning the irises of criminals for future identification. Infrared cameras can detect 235 unique details in the iris compared to 70 for fingerprints. Iris scans can differentiate between right and left eyes and between twins.

A new 3-dimensional face recognition technology is claimed to be more accurate than 2D. It recognizes faces when turned 90 degrees from the camera (only 35 degrees permissible for 2D) and it focuses on features where skin and bone are most prominent — such as eye socket curvature and distance between eyes; shape of nose, chin, and ears; and length and shape of jaw. Scars, moles, and other blemishes are also noted.

West Virginia University’s Center for Identification Technology Research is working with the FBI to capture covert iris images from 15 feet away and facial features from 200 yards. Retica Systems is scheduled to deliver test equipment to the Pentagon next year to scan a crowd and store many iris images simultaneously.

A Sweeping New DNA Database.   DNA is a much more comprehensive biometric identifier than fingerprints and iris scans, or palm impressions and facial features. It contains volumes of sensitive genetic and medical information. Privacy issues are far more seriously threatened by unauthorized and inappropriate use of DNA.

Congress passed the DNA Identification Act of 1994 to create the National DNA Index System (NDIS) for people convicted of violent felonies. In 2004 that was amended to include people convicted of any felony, and allows states to contribute DNA samples of people charged or convicted of any crime. When the state contributions are added the database is called the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). Another modification in 2006 allows states to provide DNA of anyone arrested, even if they are not charged. Today there are 13 states contributing to CODIS (Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia). Today CODIS is the world’s largest DNA databank with some 5.9 million samples.

It will grow. Attached to the Violence Against Women Act was a provision that allows federal authorities to collect DNA samples from those arrested, but not yet convicted, of any federal crime (previously only states could do this), and from immigrants detained for any reason. This will add approximately 1.2 million samples a year to CODIS. Some 140,000 of those will come from people arrested for federal crimes but the vast majority will be from immigrants, legal or illegal, whether detained for a crime or held for an administrative violation. Federal statutes require that people’s DNA be removed from the database if not convicted, but the federal rule for administrating the new law requires that a person must request removal. With the Bush administration’s penchant for secrecy and deception it would be naïve to expect removal even if one happens to know enough to request it.

There is more. In late April 2008 President Bush signed into law The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007. Don’t be misled by that misleading title. What this law does is allow the federal government to collect DNA from every newborn baby in the US. Under the pretext of preparing for some “public health emergency” the new law says the government will “continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening” and “maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening … ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly.” (Steve Watson, Infowars.net, 2 May 2008) The bill also allows this DNA to be used for genetic experiments and tests. What it doesn’t say is that the government will have a complete DNA databank on everyone born after 2008.

It is clear that all of this personal identity collection compounds already significant privacy issues, enhances identity theft, and moves the US inexorably toward a total surveillance society.

Bob Aldridge